[casual_games] surprising stats about casual gaming

[Steve Meretzky]

Even if the gameplay of Diablo were appealing to casual gamers, the
theme/tone would be a turn-off.

 

While the long play-sessions of many 5 minute games prove that casual gamers
have the time for a longer game, it doesn't necessarily prove that they have
interest in a longer game. While a longer game can in theory be just as easy
to pick up, with as simple and intuitive a rule set, the perception is
likely to be that a longer game will be "like those PC and console games my
teenage son plays, and that I could never figure out". (And, frankly, I'm
not sure that a longer casual game wouldn't end up that way any way, as the
designers of the game give in to the temptation afforded by the longer game
to add more features and complexity.)

 

If there are going to be longer-play casual games, it will probably be as a
result of gradually weaning the casual audience in that direction. I think
the trend of many downloadable games to have a light uber-game which ties
together the 5-minute levels is promising movement in that direction. For
example, the familiar mechanic of a world map which, after you complete 5
levels, shows you "traveling" from the oasis to the pyramid, leaving a
dotted line to show the journey traveled so far, resuming playing at a
slightly harder difficulty level. Thus you have a many-hour game, which
feels like a bunch of 5-minute games -- and which in fact a player who is
uninterested in (or intimidated by) the uber-game can just ignore that
uber-game and actually play it as a stand-alone 5-minute game. (It would be
interesting to know what percentage of players of games that are thusly
structured focus on the uber-game, and what percentage ignore it.)

 

--Steve

 

  _____  

From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of David Wessman
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:21 PM
To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
Subject: Re: [casual_games] surprising stats about casual gaming

 

For me the most interesting finding was when people play and for how long.
The idea that casual games need to be designed around the idea of quick
10-15 minute play sessions seems to me over-emphasized, if not plain wrong.
Clearly, a lot of casual gamers aren't playing these games simply because
they can be played within some narrow window of opportunity. 

 

Another consideration that perhaps explains some of the appeal of short
duration games is the fact that when casual gamers do sit down to play, they
know they're going to be able to play several games to conclusion.  But
then, is that so different from any level or mission-based game where it
takes 10-20 minutes to complete a mission? 

 

I think casual gamers would be receptive to games that are designed to take
hours to play.  Particularly, if they can save their progress at any time
(or at least every 5-10 minutes.)

 

To me the main criteria for considering a game "casual" are that it have a
very shallow learning curve and a very simple interface.  Actual gameplay
can be quite deep and play time can be much longer than previously assumed. 

 

I'm very curious how much of a leap it would be for a lot of these so-called
"casual" gamers to get into something like Diabo.

 

Thanks for reading,

David Wessman
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20060725/79bfce03/attachment.html